9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-2009 - Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Shri S. Gautam, Authorized Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue. None for the respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)] - This is an appeal by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 154-CE/LKO/2007 dated 31.10.07 by which invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, he set aside the penalty of Rs.96,194/- imposed on the respondent. 2. Heard the learned DR. There was a representation on behalf of the respondent seeking to decide the appeal on merits taking into account the submissions in the cross-objection filed by the respondent against the said appeal. 3. During the period from April 2002 to March, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llected from their customers and passed on to the pay channels is not liable for inclusion and on this they have relied on two Board's Circulars dated 6.6.97 and 9.7.2001 (supra) issued in the context of service tax on steamer agent and insurance auxiliary service. In the said Circular dated 6.6.97, the Board has clarified that other expenses incurred by the steamer agent on behalf of shipping line shall not be taken into account. Similarly, in respect of insurance auxiliary service the Board has clarified vide Circular dated 9.7.2001 that amount billed to the client on account of out of pocket expenses which are reimbursable on actual basis are not subject to service tax. No doubt, these clarifications were issued not in the context of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y has not imposed any penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He has imposed penalty under Section 76 for the delay in paying service tax. It is not a case where the respondents did not pay any service tax at all. They have paid service tax, as per their understanding on the value, excluding the amounts received by way of reimbursement amounts paid to the pay channels. Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the reasoning for his coming to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause on the part of the respondents in not paying the differential service tax which has been subsequently paid. He has recorded that the Board's clarification in respect of Steamer Agent service and Insurance Auxiliary Service has been misunderstood by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
